View Single Post
Old 07-16-2015 | 06:17 PM
  #427  
sleeves
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
From: 737 fo
Default

Originally Posted by gettinbumped
So you think MOU 14 was a mistake (as I do, and have said about 25 times here) and rather than learn from it you want to do it again? That makes no sense. You realize that the group that you are claiming are being "wronged" by MOU are the very people that got their Captain bids in a suspect way out of seniority, right? I'm not going to bother to rehash THAT argument again here, but I think if you live by the special deal then you should be prepared to die by the special deal.

Lastly, as far as the 737-500's being a separate fleet, it doesn't matter what SWA does. It only matters what the POI at UAL does. Example, making UCH fly the 756 and 76T fleets as separate for so long. I'm just passing along what I heard during 737 School in IAH. I have no idea whether it's accurate or not, but I'm assuming the training center would have more knowledge about the situation than you do
What I have said repeatedly is that MOU 14 opened up this can of worms. It is wrong to give it to some and not to others and it is going to be very divisive. As I have posted on here before I actually don't like the plan.
As far as how someone got there Capt. seat...what does it even mean to get them in a suspect way? They put in a bid! It seems you have been down in IAH so I guess you figured out the process. Pre SLI, without a seniority list by definition there cannot be out of seniority bids. Many of the guys in the bottom of the IAH list got there on bid 12-08,13-04 and 13-08. Those bids came out 2 years, 1 1/2 years and 1 years before SLI. They were all in position well before SLI.
Lastly, really you heard it at the school house? Bwaaaa, that place is infamous for giving out false rumors. The only worse place for info is probably APC. If the company wants to make it a combined fleet I am sure they can figure out a way as it was done before and is currently being done now.
Reply